Thank you for that. It suggests to me that a way to square this circle, without any need for formal changes, is to change the draft to describe this practice: if you use "updates" you should include (sub)sections that clearly state how the target RFCs are extended and/or changed.
(I think on balance that "change" is the simplest word for an international readership.) Regards/Ngā mihi Brian On 06-Jul-26 10:17, Scudder, John G wrote:
Of possible interest to some of you, there are a couple worked examples of RFCs that opted in to use the proposed language. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-rswg-updates-tag/referencedby/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuehlewind-rswg-updates-tag/referencedby/> —John
-- rswg mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
